I feel like this is an issue that hasn't had much conversation and I wanted to hear opinions of the people around here.

I've always felt that the internet should be about the free flow of information and easy access to it would only benefit the people. Should the companies that grant access to it decide which sites get higher broadband? Could that be abused? Is the profit model going to change the way we communicate our ideas online? Should cable companies have that much power to craft online censorship?

An Anti-Consumer Agenda at the F.C.C.

As President Trump rushes to dismantle Obama-era rules that protect Americans, he has an energetic helper over at the Federal Communications Commission. Its new Republican chairman has started undoing policies of his predecessor that were intended to make phone, cable and internet service more fair and more affordable.

Ajit Pai, who was a commissioner before he became chairman last month, is trying to wipe away net neutrality rules put in place by Tom Wheeler, the former chairman, to prevent broadband companies from creating fast and slow lanes on the internet. Mr. Pai has scrapped a proposal to let people buy cable-TV boxes instead of renting them at inflated prices from companies like Comcast. Many of Mr. Pai’s moves would hurt the people who have the least power. For instance, he has backed away from rules to lower the exorbitant rates for prison phone calls. And he has suspended nine companies from providing discounted internet service to poor people through a program known as Lifeline.

Mr. Pai, who says the Wheeler-era regulations are burdensome, clearly favors policies that serve the interests of large telecommunications companies.

Consider the net neutrality rules, which were put in place to prevent broadband companies from giving preferential treatment to content from their affiliates or business partners. Because only one or two cable and phone companies provide high-speed internet access to homes in most of the country, they can easily impose abusive policies without fear of losing customers. Those businesses have tried to use their power as internet gatekeepers to demand that streaming companies like Netflix pay them fees to deliver movies and TV shows to people who are already paying for broadband. The regulations were upheld last year by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. If Mr. Pai now scraps them, he will be helping big telecom companies at the expense of internet users and smaller companies without the deep pockets to pay broadband providers.

Mr. Pai wants cable companies to keep making a mint from renting cable boxes — a revenue stream that totals nearly $20 billion a year. He seems unconcerned that families across the country are being forced to spend an average of $231 a year on those fees, when they would save money over the long run if they were allowed to buy the boxes just as they purchase other electronic devices. In fact, Congress directed the F.C.C. to do just that. Yet the commission is ignoring that law and allowing this scheme to continue.

Mr. Pai is aiming right at the poor with his policies on prison phone rates and discounted broadband service. Phone companies filed a lawsuit challenging rules adopted during Mr. Wheeler’s tenure to cap prison phone rates, which had been as high as $17 for a 15-minute phone call. There is simply no justification for those rates. And by suspending companies seeking to offer discounted broadband service through Lifeline, the F.C.C. will deprive children from poor households of the high-speed internet access they need to do homework. Mr. Pai says he is concerned about fraud and says the affected companies were not properly vetted. But this isn’t the right way to root out abuse. The commission could, for example, subject companies participating in the program to regular audits.

Congress created the F.C.C. to help all Americans obtain access to communication services without discrimination and at fair prices. Mr. Pai’s approach does exactly the opposite.

I have no problem with internet companies being able to restrict bandwidth to competitors product if it is on their infrastructure. Companies like sling TV and Netflix get all the perks of offering content to customers without having to provide the infrastructure. The TWC, Comcast, AT&T, and the dozens of local suppliers should have the ability to throttle their speeds or even block them if they wish. This fight all started when the internet providers tried to charge Netflix and Sling, but were unsuccessful. This is like if you saved your money and opened up your own coffee shop, then some guy sat at a table selling his own coffee for less money in your store. You don't think you have the right to prevent him from doing so?

In the UK BT owns all of the cable lines, but Sky, their largest competitor also obviously uses BT's lines. If you look at your Sky bill you pay a "line rental fee". People there get mad about, but it's only logical that you would, no?

In some areas (like where I live) the county, city, or state is running fiber optic cable. They are going to rent it out to Verizon, TWC, Google...whoever wants to use it to provide a service to customers. From what the city announced they are doing this to increase competition, lower prices, and prevent companies from preferential bandwidth. I think this is an awesome use of local resources.

uscbucsfan wrote:I know most are ignoring this thread, but I'll provide my opinion.

I have no problem with internet companies being able to restrict bandwidth to competitors product if it is on their infrastructure. Companies like sling TV and Netflix get all the perks of offering content to customers without having to provide the infrastructure. The TWC, Comcast, AT&T, and the dozens of local suppliers should have the ability to throttle their speeds or even block them if they wish. This fight all started when the internet providers tried to charge Netflix and Sling, but were unsuccessful. This is like if you saved your money and opened up your own coffee shop, then some guy sat at a table selling his own coffee for less money in your store. You don't think you have the right to prevent him from doing so?

In the UK BT owns all of the cable lines, but Sky, their largest competitor also obviously uses BT's lines. If you look at your Sky bill you pay a "line rental fee". People there get mad about, but it's only logical that you would, no?

In some areas (like where I live) the county, city, or state is running fiber optic cable. They are going to rent it out to Verizon, TWC, Google...whoever wants to use it to provide a service to customers. From what the city announced they are doing this to increase competition, lower prices, and prevent companies from preferential bandwidth. I think this is an awesome use of local resources.

usc, I'll counter your example with this one. You, the ISP, own a mall. You realize that a majority of your foot traffic is going to Lids (Obviously this is a fantasy world). While Lids occupies the same space in your mall, you have to hire extra staff to clean the mall in the area around Lids. You try to raise Lids' rent but they beat you in court to say that's not justified.

So is it ok to start charging admission to the mall for people that want to go to Lids?

uscbucsfan wrote:I know most are ignoring this thread, but I'll provide my opinion.

I have no problem with internet companies being able to restrict bandwidth to competitors product if it is on their infrastructure. Companies like sling TV and Netflix get all the perks of offering content to customers without having to provide the infrastructure. The TWC, Comcast, AT&T, and the dozens of local suppliers should have the ability to throttle their speeds or even block them if they wish. This fight all started when the internet providers tried to charge Netflix and Sling, but were unsuccessful. This is like if you saved your money and opened up your own coffee shop, then some guy sat at a table selling his own coffee for less money in your store. You don't think you have the right to prevent him from doing so?

bucfanclw wrote:usc, I'll counter your example with this one. You, the ISP, own a mall. You realize that a majority of your foot traffic is going to Lids (Obviously this is a fantasy world). While Lids occupies the same space in your mall, you have to hire extra staff to clean the mall in the area around Lids. You try to raise Lids' rent but they beat you in court to say that's not justified.

So is it ok to start charging admission to the mall for people that want to go to Lids?

I'll be honest, I'm completely oblivious to most things tech...I simply don't care enough to learn. But don't ISPs already charge customers different rates depending on the speed and data plan you have coming to your router?

If someone can confirm this simple question I could make my further opinion on the topic in general

Zarniwoop wrote:I'll be honest, I'm completely oblivious to most things tech...I simply don't care enough to learn. But don't ISPs already charge customers different rates depending on the speed and data plan you have coming to your router?

If someone can confirm this simple question I could make my further opinion on the topic in general

ISPs do charge differently for different speeds. As far as data plans, I don't even know if data plans for home internet are a thing anymore in the US.

Yeah... I don't have a "data plan" per se. But I do pay for a specific speed level that I'm paying for. For the record, I have no need to have THE fastest speeds possible. So long as I can stream video/movies from Netflix, Amazon, AppleTV, watch the occasional show on my computer that I may have missed or what-have-you, I'm good.

Last edited by Buc2 on Mon May 08, 2017 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Basically, your internet access would be akin to your cable package. Right now you just pay for speed and/or data limits. What they would be able to do with Net Neutrality abolished is also charge you for content.$69.99 p/mo. Basic internet= Social media, local business, government websites, retail websites.

bucfanclw wrote:usc, I'll counter your example with this one. You, the ISP, own a mall. You realize that a majority of your foot traffic is going to Lids (Obviously this is a fantasy world). While Lids occupies the same space in your mall, you have to hire extra staff to clean the mall in the area around Lids. You try to raise Lids' rent but they beat you in court to say that's not justified.

So is it ok to start charging admission to the mall for people that want to go to Lids?

Lids pays rent to the mall, which kinda nullifies this example. This all started when ISPs wanted Netflix and Sling TV to pay a monthly fee, they did not.

To your point...it's your mall. Charge admission if you want. If people go to the rival mall, you will change your structure or have less customers.

Last edited by uscbucsfan on Mon May 08, 2017 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

uscbucsfan wrote:I know most are ignoring this thread, but I'll provide my opinion.

I have no problem with internet companies being able to restrict bandwidth to competitors product if it is on their infrastructure. Companies like sling TV and Netflix get all the perks of offering content to customers without having to provide the infrastructure. The TWC, Comcast, AT&T, and the dozens of local suppliers should have the ability to throttle their speeds or even block them if they wish. This fight all started when the internet providers tried to charge Netflix and Sling, but were unsuccessful. This is like if you saved your money and opened up your own coffee shop, then some guy sat at a table selling his own coffee for less money in your store. You don't think you have the right to prevent him from doing so?

I had no idea Netflix was an ISP.

I never said they were. They are providing a competing services that the ISPs are offering with viewing content. That is reducing the ISP's market share on that platform. The ISP can either A) raise the price of the internet B) charge companies like Netflix C) reduce the quality of Netflix for using their property or D) kick netflix off.

A and D would cause them to lose the most customers....The ISP has tried to do B and C, which is where we are now.

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Basically, your internet access would be akin to your cable package. Right now you just pay for speed and/or data limits. What they would be able to do with Net Neutrality abolished is also charge you for content.$69.99 p/mo. Basic internet= Social media, local business, government websites, retail websites.

Or worse yet, let's say Amazon has a great deal on a product, but your ISP has a kickback deal with YourISPShop.com so you can only purchase that product online at an inflated price because they refuse access to Amazon.

I never said they were. They are providing a competing services that the ISPs are offering with viewing content. That is reducing the ISP's market share on that platform. The ISP can either A) raise the price of the internet B) charge companies like Netflix C) reduce the quality of Netflix for using their property or D) kick netflix off.

A and D would cause them to lose the most customers....The ISP has tried to do B and C, which is where we are now.

Your example said you open up a coffee shop, and someone comes into your shop and starts selling coffee, too. ISPs provide internet service. Netflix isn't settin up shop on their lines offering internet as well.

bucfanclw wrote:Or worse yet, let's say Amazon has a great deal on a product, but your ISP has a kickback deal with YourISPShop.com so you can only purchase that product online at an inflated price because they refuse access to Amazon.

Or even worse you want to educate yourself on a particular issue, but in your attempts to learn, your ISP directs you towards the viewpoints of those lining their pockets with the most cash.

uscbucsfan wrote:I never said they were. They are providing a competing services that the ISPs are offering with viewing content. That is reducing the ISP's market share on that platform. The ISP can either A) raise the price of the internet B) charge companies like Netflix C) reduce the quality of Netflix for using their property or D) kick netflix off.

A and D would cause them to lose the most customers....The ISP has tried to do B and C, which is where we are now.

Your example said you open up a coffee shop, and someone comes into your shop and starts selling coffee, too. ISPs provide internet service. Netflix isn't settin up shop on their lines offering internet as well.

ISPs sell cable/satellite and is losing business to Netflix. Fine to dumb it down for you, your coffee shop sells cookies. Someone comes in and starts selling cheaper cookies at a table.

I feel like all of these examples are missibg the point that ISPs own most of the infrastructure. Its their lawn. They should be able to make the rules.

NYBF wrote:Your example said you open up a coffee shop, and someone comes into your shop and starts selling coffee, too. ISPs provide internet service. Netflix isn't settin up shop on their lines offering internet as well.

ISPs sell cable/satellite and is losing business to Netflix. Fine to dumb it down for you, your coffee shop sells cookies. Someone comes in and starts selling cheaper cookies at a table.

I feel like all of these examples are missibg the point that ISPs own most of the infrastructure. Its their lawn. They should be able to make the rules.

So if the telephone company told you you couldn't call certain businesses because of business agreements, and you only have the one phone option where you live, you'd be fine with that because they own the lines, right?

uscbucsfan wrote:ISPs sell cable/satellite and is losing business to Netflix. Fine to dumb it down for you, your coffee shop sells cookies. Someone comes in and starts selling cheaper cookies at a table.

I feel like all of these examples are missibg the point that ISPs own most of the infrastructure. Its their lawn. They should be able to make the rules.

So if the telephone company told you you couldn't call certain businesses because of business agreements, and you only have the one phone option where you live, you'd be fine with that because they own the lines, right?

Absolutely. I would cancel with them and go elsewhere. The government doesn't need to step in unless they are willing to provide the infrastructure or buy the ISPs existing infrastructure

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Basically, your internet access would be akin to your cable package. Right now you just pay for speed and/or data limits. What they would be able to do with Net Neutrality abolished is also charge you for content.$69.99 p/mo. Basic internet= Social media, local business, government websites, retail websites.

At the risk of getting dragged back in to the political forum, which I really don't have time for these days, that whole infrastructure thing always seemed a bit dodgy to me.

I think it makes perfect sense that if the government of a country is going to allow you to run lines through countless public spaces to build your infrastructure, they should absolutely be able to regulate the usage of those lines in various ways that are in the best interests of the citizens who ostensibly own those public spaces.

For instance, in Canada, a company called Bell basically built the entire telephone infrastructure nationwide. At least that's my impression. Don't have time to fact check myself right now. Does that mean they should have a monopoly in perpetuity and be able to rake customers over the coals simply because they now have the only established infrastructure? No, not really, if the government had a hand in it.

I suppose it comes down to easement agreements with the government to some degree, but any government who doesn't establish something to mitigate a monopoly like that is abdicating their duty.

This argument may change as more and more stuff becomes wireless, but there's probably a lot of stuff to think about in terms of fair use of airwaves and bands and whatever the hell else in that regard, too.

This is an interesting topic in the sense that the more libertarian and capitalist among you probably have to jump through some hoops to come down entirely on the side of neutrality, but my socialist ass has no problem being firmly in that camp. All the same, anyone who has no problem watching cable companies essentially try to turn the internet into cable all over again really makes me wonder.

bucfanclw wrote:So if the telephone company told you you couldn't call certain businesses because of business agreements, and you only have the one phone option where you live, you'd be fine with that because they own the lines, right?

Absolutely. I would cancel with them and just not have a phone since your example clearly stated I only have one phone option in my area. The government doesn't need to step in unless they are willing to provide the infrastructure or buy the ISPs existing infrastructure

SpaceX and Tesla-founder Elon Musk has made some rather bold promises over the years. In addition to building a fleet of reusable rockets, an Interplanetary Transport System, colonizing Mars, and revolutionizing transportation, he has also made it clear that he hopes to provide worldwide broadband access by deploying a "constellation" of internet-providing satellites.

In November of 2016, SpaceX filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a license to operate this constellation of non-geostationary satellites (NGS). And earlier this week, the US Senate Committee on Commerce. Science, and Transportation convened a hearing to explore this proposal for next-generation telecommunications services.

The hearing was titled, "Investing in America's Broadband Infrastructure: Exploring Ways to Reduce Barriers to Deployment". In the course of things, the committee heard from representatives of government and industry who spoke about the best ways to offer streamlined broadband access (especially in rural areas), the necessary infrastructure, and how to encourage private investment.

Of those the committee heard from, Ms. Patricia Cooper – VP of Satellite Government Affairs for SpaceX – was on hand to underscore the company's vision.

As she stated:"SpaceX sees substantial demand for high-speed broad band in the United States and worldwide. As the Committee is aware, millions of Americans outside of limited urban areas lack basic, reliable access. Furthermore, even in urban areas, a majority of Americans lacks more than a single fixed broadband provider from which to choose and may seek additional competitive options for high-speed service."

lachisbackisback wrote:At the risk of getting dragged back in to the political forum, which I really don't have time for these days, that whole infrastructure thing always seemed a bit dodgy to me.

I think it makes perfect sense that if the government of a country is going to allow you to run lines through countless public spaces to build your infrastructure, they should absolutely be able to regulate the usage of those lines in various ways that are in the best interests of the citizens who ostensibly own those public spaces.

For instance, in Canada, a company called Bell basically built the entire telephone infrastructure nationwide. At least that's my impression. Don't have time to fact check myself right now. Does that mean they should have a monopoly in perpetuity and be able to rake customers over the coals simply because they now have the only established infrastructure? No, not really, if the government had a hand in it.

I suppose it comes down to easement agreements with the government to some degree, but any government who doesn't establish something to mitigate a monopoly like that is abdicating their duty.

This argument may change as more and more stuff becomes wireless, but there's probably a lot of stuff to think about in terms of fair use of airwaves and bands and whatever the hell else in that regard, too.

This is an interesting topic in the sense that the more libertarian and capitalist among you probably have to jump through some hoops to come down entirely on the side of neutrality, but my socialist ass has no problem being firmly in that camp. All the same, anyone who has no problem watching cable companies essentially try to turn the internet into cable all over again really makes me wonder.

As an aside to this, Charter/Spectrum has the tap to most of my neighbors in my back yard. Twice now they've left the gate open letting my dogs run free when I let them out after work. I have complained to them, but I can't legally forbid them from accessing my property because they fall under the same easement rules as, say, water and sewage, even though they are claiming not to be a public utility.

That's what I'm saying with the wireless thing. But I still think a compelling argument could be made that allowing a company to place infrastructure that operates in your country, whether it be a physical wire or a radio wave or anything else that just happens to not be seen by the human eye, should not exempt you from regulation.

And of course it already doesn't, with stuff like the FCC and the CRTC in Canada.

As I say, it sounds compelling to say that simply because you establish infrastructure, you should have complete control over what you do with it, but it has never been the case and probably won't ever be the case. That argument is a red herring. But it does seem more compelling when the government doesn't really have to do anything in terms of establishing the infrastructure, like with satellites.